Saturday, January 30, 2016

Schlonged: During a speech in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Trump said Hillary had been “schlonged” by Obama in the 2008 race. In response, the Clinton campaign called Trump a sexist. It’s a charge Hillary has leveled against virtually every opponent she’s faced, but Trump responded differently. Instead of scrambling to donate to breast cancer research, he pointed out that Hillary spent years attacking the alleged victims of her husband’s sexual assaults. That ended the conversation almost immediately.

8. State of Indigenous Education India in the 18th century - excerpts from a book by noted Gandhian Dharmpal - 'In October 1931 Gandhiji was invited to address the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London where he made two observations. One 'that today India is more illiterate than it was fifty or hundred years ago'. Two that 'the British administrators instead of looking after education and other matters which had existed began to root them out. They scratched the soil and began to look at the root, and left the root like that and the beautiful tree perished'.

Dharampalji visited London archives and has reproduced British survey reports that tell us of how the Indian education system worked in Punjab, Bihar, Bengal. Ch 5 has the British strategy to kill India's indigenous education system, Ch 6 gives Table which show Sudras were highest nos of scholars, Ch 8 has two articles by Daulat Ram Gupta titled 'The Decline of Mass Education in India. '

Trump's decision to skip the FOX News Republican presidential debate over his complaint of biased treatment, was a clever move that's resulted in further boost to his popularity (if that's even possible). He seems to have an uncanny knowledge on how to run circles around the media. Even MSNBC, the most left-wing of the networks, has acknowledged his deftness. Almost makes me think that Lefties are secretly rooting for him.

Scott Adams, considered a management guru because of his widely-loved Dilbert comic strip, has been keeping tabs on Trump's campaign moves as part of his blog:

"The system has been geared to favouring those who have the ability to work the courts. The policy that you (large businessmen) follow is that during good times you take the upside but in bad times you go to banks and ask how much of a haircut are you going to take?"

You've got to wonder where Jaitley and Modi are in holding profligate rich deadbeats accountable for their debt delinquency. To quote that famous phrase, this is another example of "socializing the risks while privatizing the rewards."

If the Modi government is to salvage the remainder of its three-plus-year term, it has to push both the legislative envelope in parliament and executive action outside it to bypass Congress and Left obstructionism.

If the Modi government is to salvage the remainder of its three-plus-year term from legislative blockades and logjam, it has to think out of the box. Whether it is the goods and services tax (GST), or the land bill or privatisation of public sector banks or other companies, it has to push both the legislative envelope in parliament and executive action outside it to bypass Congress and Left obstructionism.

There is, in my view, no point in trying to placate the Gandhi dynasty repeatedly to get things done in the Rajya Sabha, especially by going easy on the National Herald case or the Robert Vadra land grab. Atal Behari Vajpayee let the Gandhis off the hook on Bofors by not even questioning Sonia Gandhi on the payoffs (Ottavio Quattrochi was her pal, and the payoffs to him needed her to at least be questioned, but this never happened). But there was no gratitude from the Gandhi family for this huge political favour shown to them, possibly at the behest of Brajesh Mishra, the then PM's all-in advisor.

So letting the Gandhis off lightly by executive inaction in their cases should not even enter the discussion. The Gandhis will swallow the favours and still work against the government. But in order to get things done before 2019, the Modi government has to move smartly – both legislatively and outside the legislative domain. Here's what it could do.

First, it should use the first half of the budget session to pass all the laws it wants to in the Lok Sabha, and then hand them over to the Rajya Sabha. The upper house will, presumably, bottle them up, but it cannot do so indefinitely. At some point, if the laws are neither rejected nor passed, there would be a case for calling a joint session of parliament, where the NDA has the upper hand. So, even if the laws, amended or modified, are passed a year later, it is worth investing the time in them now.

The repeal of all nationalisation acts, giving Aadhaar legislative backing, the creation of a public sector golden share where economic rights can be separated from voting rights are some examples of legislation that can be passed. The bankruptcy code too can be passed, possibly as a money bill, though the government seems to have had second thoughts on that.

Second, we know the GST is stuck. After the imposition of President's rule in Arunachal, and the Rohit Vemula suicide, it would be foolish to expect the Congress to be in a benign mood during the budget session. So Arun Jaitley has to think up a different way to progress. For example, is there any reason why the GST cannot be applicable only to central excise and service tax?

What prevents the government from framing a new Central GST law that unifies central excise and service tax, with the same setoffs now available for excise? The states can join in later. Also, what stops the government from even allowing setoffs of specified state VAT payments in the central GST rate?

Third, privatisation may need legislation, especially for companies that were nationalised through acts of parliament. But surely the sale of assets is possible. Take the case of ITDC. What stops the centre from selling a hotel or two, with some of the staff attached, who can also be given generous handshakes, from selling the asset without privatising ITDC? ITDC would become a shell company, but it would remain in the public sector.

Kaliachak, Malda: On 3 January, the Edara-e-Shariyah called for a protest march in Kaliachak, a nondescript, dirty town lodged in the gullet of the Siliguri Corridor – or what is known as the chicken's neck – a sliver of northern West Bengal hemmed in by Nepal and Bhutan in the north and Bangladesh in the south.

The Muslim organisation, hitherto unheard of outside Malda district, within which Kaliachak lies, was angered at what it alleged were defamatory remarks made against Prophet Muhammad. The offensive speech was delivered by the Hindu leader Kamlesh Tiwari in Lucknow on 2 December, 2015, a month before the protest march.

According to district administration estimates, close to 1.5 lakh people attended the Kaliachak rally. As speakers delivered their perorations, a group of protestors broke away. The band rushed towards Kaliachak police station, ostensibly angered at the recklessness with which a Border Security Force vehicle, a Mahindra Bolero, sped through the crowd, endangering lives. This gang of men hurled stones and kerosene bombs at the police station, setting it ablaze. The pack then turned towards Baliadanga, a residential block behind the police station, singling out homeowners for abuse.

Late in the afternoon — police have the time as 3 pm — a special containment unit was dispatched from Malda to Kaliachak. Violence was contained that same day.

Local newspapers and soon the national media began to trace the narrative of that day's violence along a communal arc — fed mostly by statements of young Hindu men in Ghariyalichak, a Muslim neighbourhood in Kaliachak, who said they felt the real targets of mob fury were their temples. The West Bengal chapter of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was quick to back these claims.

American Orientalism is a product of American history, where European settlers battled previous settlers – the American Indians – before finally decimating them, both through violence and internal emasculation by pretending to be their friends.

Edward Said made the idea of "Orientalism" famous – and a pejorative word in western academia. His critique about western scholars using only European lenses to view non-European cultures is today widely accepted as valid. However, there is only one kind of Orientalism that is still not being called that: the capture of Indian history and cultural studies by powerful American academics with little respect for the sacred traditions of India and Hinduism, even while pretending to be well-wishers of all things Hindu or Indian. Rajiv Malhotra is finally calling it what it is – American Orientalism – in his new book The Battle For Sanskrit. The book's sub-title explains what the battle is about: Is Sanskrit Political Or Sacred; Oppressive Or Liberating; Dead Or Alive?

Malhotra's is the most important critique of the new form of Orientalism that has taken root in American academia, now the European academia is no longer calling the shots on Indic studies. The reason why American Orientalism is dangerous for Indic culture is because of the sheer sophistication it brings to the idea of hollowing out Indic culture and studying Sanskrit by decapitating the head from the body. It is about studying a carcass, not a living tradition or idea.

American Orientalism is a product of American history, where European settlers battled previous settlers – the American Indians – before finally decimating them, both through violence and internal emasculation by pretending to be their friends. This is exactly the attitude American Orientalists bring to the study of Sanskrit, by pretending to be lovers of the language, and then trying to delink it from its sacred roots in Hindu tradition and thought.

Malhotra views American Orientalism as more dangerous than European Orientalism precisely because it is a frenemy – helpful to Indian scholars who have lost control of their own traditions and narratives, and yet fundamentally opposed to putting Sanskrit on the pedestal that learned pandits would normally do. We have now developed such awe for the sheer effort and resources American Universities have poured into Sanskrit studies that we are willing to treat them as sympathetic to our cause, and even give them millions of dollars to tell us about our own heritage. We end up giving them Padma Shris, while our own pandits languish without resources or recognition. We are too naïve to be able to wrest back control of our heritage from its real enemies.

The technique used by American Orientalists – of whom Malhotra names Sheldon Pollock as chief frenemy – is the good-cop-bad-cop routine. The existence of some American scholars with a genuine interest and concern for preserving our Sanskrit heritage tends to make us believe that they are fighting on our side; on the other hand, there are the Sheldon Pollocks who seek to separate the soul of Sanskrit from its body, by separating the sacred aspects of the language from its secular usage – the paramarthikafrom the vyavaharika. The idea is to embed a degree of self-hate in Hindus, so that they begin to view Sanskrit as the language of oppression, and only some aspects of the language – the kavya and secular literature – as worthy of respect. Pollock would like sacred Sanskrit as essentially oppressive – and many western-educated Indians have internalised this critique.

Let's be clear, Malhotra is no Hindutva extremist trying to pretend that everything about Hinduism or Sanskrit is holy or beyond critique. Far from it. What he objects to is the western effort to become the final arbiter in Sanskrit studies by ignoring the insider's (ie, the Hindu practitioner's) views on this language, which embodies the soul of India and its many daughter languages. He would like Indians inside the Sanskrit tradition to understand where the Pollocks are coming from and how they can both accept the outsider's views even while developing a robust defence of tradition minus its negative aspects. Malhotra is not at all opposed to internal reforms.

Unfortunately, given the fundamental fault-lines in Indian society (caste and religion), and also given the Leftist control of most academic and cultural institutions in independent India, there are many takers for American Orientalism among the Indian elite, even those who do not mind being called Hindus, whether at home on in America. There are many reasons why Hindus themselves seem unaware of the machinations of American Orientalists: as a people, we have developed an inferiority complex where we place a higher value on what the west thinks of us than what we know to be true ourselves; we have also lost track of our own traditions, where we feel embarrassed that we need to read our own itihasain English books written by foreigners to understand our past.

For India’s middle class, the car is the star: Bureaucrats need to think about how to make public transport attractive to the emerging middle class. That, and not rising car sales, would be a genuine indicator of development and progress.

Released for Republic Day, the movie Airlift stars Akshay Kumar as a fictional Indian businessman living in Kuwait who is among 170,000 Indian ex-pats who become stranded as refugees during the real life events of Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It was during this crisis that India mounted the world's largest ever aerial evacuation of refugees.

I guess that's one of the reasons why you need to have a country and can't just live the bohemian lifestyle as a citizen of the world at large, because in spite of what the liberals say, you can't just survive on the kindness of strangers.

Elon Musk gives a talk in HongKong on various topics including electric cars:

One comment he makes at 9:10 was about how building lots of tunnels into your city plan would help a lot in easing traffic congestion. Given India's huge population and the fact that much infrastructure has yet to be build down the road, it would really behoove Indian planners to factor in such thinking into their designs.

During my pretty long life, I have listened to many lectures on Indian history and read many books on the subject, but I have never watched such a breathtaking view on 'How Much Of Indian History Is

Really True?' as presentd by Sanjeev Sanyal who is an economist, an Eisenhower Fellow and Rhodes Scholar.

When you switch on the video, please ignore the first few minutes of the introduction by some one who does not seem to be very clear. Once you get over that phase, you are in for an amazing lecture. Sanjeev talks about many important facts of Indian history I never knew about. He talks about Maharajah Marthanda Varma of Travancore and the Battle of Colachel in which the Dutch were decisively defeated. I knew this part of history because I belong to Travancore, but few Indians know about it. He presents a totally different perspective of Emperor Ashoka based on the facts of history.

It becomes clear that much of Indian history that we all have read is bunkum!

Enjoy!

Ram

Video: 'How Much Of Indian History Is Really True?' By Sanjeev Sanyal

"As long as the lions do not have a story-teller, history will always glorify the hunter." Playing the story-teller for India, Sanjeev Sanyal presents a case for a revamped version of Indian history through this informative video.

One of Asia's leading economists, best-selling author of Land of the Seven Rivers: A Brief History of India's Geography, Eisenhower Fellow and Rhodes Scholar, Sanjeev Sanyal addressed a gathering at the Press Club of India. In it, he highlighted the need, and presented the case for a revamped, Indian version of Indian history.

Discussing cases ranging from that of Mahmud Ghazni to the lesser known history of the Battle of Colachel, he voiced concerns plaguing many minds regarding India's pre-colonial history that has been doled out in history books. Emphasizing constantly on the need and importance of hard evidence as opposed to interpretations and opinions, he presented sound arguments to back his stand regarding the much-needed version of Indian history- 'our version', instead of the conquerors'. An interesting case with respect to the history of 'Ashoka the Great' along with a plausible explanation for its presentation as such, was presented as well.

This video would be time well spent for those seeking the other side of Indian history.

The autobiography of a former Regional Director of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), KK Muhammed, shreds the last figleaf of legitimacy from India's "Eminent" Leftist historians, and even the broader Indian Left ecosystem, which includes most mainstream political parties and large sections of the old media in print and TV.

In his book titled Njan Enna Bharatiyan (I, an Indian), Muhammed clearly indicts Left historians for actuallypreventing a rapprochement between Hindus and Muslims over the building of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, by making the Muslim side adopt intransigent positions. Firstpost quotes him as saying this:

"The Babri issue would have been settled long ago if the Muslim intelligentsia had not fallen prey to the brain-washing by the Leftist historians. A set of historians, including Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra and S Gopal argued that there was no mention of the dismantling of the temple before 19th century and Ayodhya is a Buddhist-Jain centre. They were supported by historians Irfan Habib, RS Sharma, DN Jha, Suraj Bhan and Akthar Ali."

That weeks after the book's publication the big media has still not found time to discuss this beyond quoting the usual suspects about Muhammed's lack of understanding of historiography tells us how the eco-system can kill truths that are self-evident to any normal individual.

Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi is the norm, as Arun Shourie pointed out in his brilliant critique of Leftist historiography, in his book Eminent Historians.

Muhammed's assertion that the Left historians actually scuttled efforts at a compromise is buttressed by the fact that even after the Allahabad High Court judgment of 2010, which tried to create one more opportunity for compromise between the two communities by apportioning two-thirds of the disputed area to Hindu groups and one-third to Muslims, the Left historians criticised the judgment as a sellout.Romila Thapar called it a "political judgment which could as well have been taken by the state years ago." To criticise it as a "political judgment" is a bit rich, when the Left has always believed in the political nature of historiography and historical accounts.

As a non-Left historian Meenakshi Jain notes in her bookRama and Ayodhya, the Leftist critique of the Hindu demand for a temple in Ayodhya kept shifting arguments depending on how much of their lies got proven wrong at any point of time. She writes that "initially, they (the Left historians) asserted that the disputed structure (the Babri Masjid) was constructed on a spot that was neither a place of worship, nor the site of any previous Hindu religious structure, nor was there any evidence to associate it with the birthplace of Rama. However, as the ASI excavations (ordered by the court) progressed, 'a marked change' in their approach became evident. Some archaeologists appearing on behalf of the Sunni Wakf Board tried to 'set up a new case' that there appeared to be an Islamic structure below the DS (disputed structure."

And when the excavations showed not one but several pillars of a Hindu temple at the Babri site, the argument again changed to bring in a new element: that Ayodhya was known as a place for Buddhist-Jain influence. This is a transparent effort to muddy the waters by trying to bring in a new element of conflict to make the previous conflict unresolvable.

There is only word for such sophistry: dishonesty. There is only politics, no historiography or historical rigour in the Left's assertions on behalf of the Muslim side of the argument.

Emotive, biased media reports do not tell the whole Rohith story. Only the Judicial Enquiry that has been set up will do so.

Despite the reams of print ink and TV diarrhea on the death of 26-year-old student, Rohith Vemula, on January 17/18, 2016, on Hyderabad University campus, there remain unanswered questions because the unbelievable media coverage on the issue had, from the beginning, gotten mired in politics and emotions. The result has been the following waiting for clear-cut answers.

Was Rohith really a Dalit?

Translation of excerpts from a Telugu news report in "Andhra Jyoti", 22, 2016 says "Grandparents reveal that they are Vaddera kulam (OBC). Parents said they are OBC. Rohith converted to Christianity and was renamed Chakravarti — E-police enquiries.."(andhrajyothy.com/Artical?SID=19).

However, Radhika (Rohith's mother) says that "While her husband is an OBC, she herself was from the SC Mala community." Besides, she asserts that "A certificate issued by the Revenue Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh, on June 16, 2015, clearly states that Rohith belongs to the Mala community…" (The Sunday Express, January 24, 2016).

It's likely therefore that a court battle will emerge, what with the issuance of Caste certificates being a very tricky legal issue.

Meanwhile, this question of Rohith's identity itself is of cardinal importance because if the first media report that a Dalit student had committed suicide was the reason why the media began exploding on the subject across the country, permitting a number of prominent politicians to add more noise and vitriol in the subject. If the student had not been identified initially as a Dalit, the media would certainly have not been so vocal. And the public, too, would have been able to read more news and analysis of economic issues that, really, should be the biggest national.

Was student Rohith's death the first of its kind in the Hyderabad University?

Not at all. A post by one S.Swaroop Sirapangi in "Dalit Students' Union (DSU), University of Hyderabad, on Student Politics in University of Hyderabad", stated as follows:

"Raju Puyala, who was perusing his I.M.A., Linguistics VIII Semester, committed suicide on March 19, 2013 evening at Men's Hostel – H, University of Hyderabad. For the academic year 2012-2013, Raja was serving as Vice President of "Dalit Students' Union" which is one of the oldest student organisation on the University Campus.

"As a response to the disturbed student community's agitation at the University Health Center, Vice Chancellor promised to constitute a Committee comprising SC/ST/OBC faculty members and students and take necessary stern steps.

"Various student organisations reacted severely over the repeated number of suicide incidents on the Campus and officials like Vice Chancellor, Pro Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Dean Students' Welfare, Chief Warden, etc were intensely questioned. The agitation continued throughout night and only on March 20, 2013 morning it got concluded with the transfer of Raju's dead body to his family members.."(https://ssanthiswaroop.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/puyala-rajus-suicide-at-university-of-hyderabad/).

In another post, a few months later, Swaroop Sirapangi wrote as follows:

"On November 24, 2013 a new death of a Dalit Doctoral Research Scholar was found at the University of Hyderabad." He was referring to what PTI reported about "A PhD student of Hyderabad University allegedly committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance in his hostel room, with his family alleging that he was harassed by a professor of the varsity. M Venkatesh (26) was found dead by some students at around 7 AM today, police said." (http://newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/Hyderabad-University-PhD-student-commits-)

Sirapangi went on to write "As per my personal observation, for every semester one death is getting recorded at the University of Hyderabad and huge criticism is taking place every time from different quarters."

In contrast to the extensive and pan-India media coverage to the death of Rohith Vemula, the above two student deaths got relatively scarce attention across India. In fact, Google "guru" doesn't show up any media coverage for Raju Puyala's death. The suicide of M.Venkatesh did get a minutely wider look-in. While PTI did what was expected of a professional news reporting agency, "The Times of India", after talking to students, was critical that "Authorities at University of Hyderabad are yet to implement key recommendations by two separate committees looking into suicides of students from socially backward sections on campus." It also pointed out that in 2008, a committee probing the suicide of Senthil Kumar, a Dalit student from the School of Physics, had recommended the varsity to set up a "transparent process" in the allotment of guides.

"Meanwhile," said the Times, "Ramakrishna Ramaswamy, the vice-chancellor of the university, in a written note admitted to the systemic failure of the varsity in addressing issue of suicides on campus."

"The VC has also promised that each of the departments will have to give a list of students who have not been assigned guides three months after joining PhD. He also assured that if the committee finds any one responsible for the death of Venkatesh, appropriate action will be taken against them." (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/University-of-Hyderabad) (25 Nov, 2013)

Congestion charging is the way forward: A more durable effect on pollution might come from a congestion-pricing programme, in which drivers are charged for using the roads at certain places and times. This approach, which has been successful in places like London and Singapore, allows cities to effectively reduce car use at periods of peak congestion and pollution. The Delhi government should pilot the use of congestion charging, and invest any income from the charge in high-quality, high-capacity public transport with zero local emissions.

As I said in BLR the other day, we know the problems, we know (more or less) the solutions but never bother to act. Why nobody does anything is inexplicable? And the anti-India forces continue their activities without let or hindrance, rather with more and more vigour and bigger scale. That's the bane of this country that keeps on producing more and more deracinated or anti-India Indians. A civilisation that has no collective instibct of survival has no business to survive.

From now onwards, a large section of the media in India could well be perceivedto be a little less independent or, for that matter trustworthy.

Pranjoy Guha Thakurta, 14 June 2014, EPW

As far as advertising revenue goes, magazines face a bleak future in India.

Chart below depicts the steep fall in advertising revenue of magazines in India over a decade.

Chart – 1

Looking at this scenario, it is natural that magazines will explore new ways to earn revenue.

In 2007, speaking at the Indian Magazine Congress, Suresh Selvaraj, vice-president, Outlook Group, and associate publisher, 'Marie Claire', spoke of green bucks – the revenue models for magazines and how these have evolved.

"Essentially, there are four of these," he began. These included the Circulation Revenue Model (the so-called 'ad free' magazines, which make up for that with high cover prices), the Ad Revenue Model (particularly profitable for B2B publications – essentially ad driven and content free of cost), the Content Selling Model (paid for content) and the Treaty Model (trading off unsold ad inventory and even editorial space for shares of fledgling companies, and thereby, increasing the valuation of the concerned company). "The last two models have been successfully adopted by The Times of India," Selvaraj observed.

The options defined in 2007 as sources of revenue are true even now for magazines.

But "TheEconomic and Political Weekly(EPW) a left-leaning weekly Indianmagazinepublished fromMumbaiby the Sameeksha Trust, a charitable trust" has a way of generating revenue which is not mentioned in the Suresh Selvaraj's list.